Education Bill [Lords] - Standing Committee A

[Mr. Eric Forth in the Chair]

Education Bill [Lords]

Stephen Twigg: I beg to move,
That—
(1)during proceedings on the Education Bill [Lords] the Standing Committee shall, in addition to its first meeting at 9.25a.m. on Tuesday 22nd March, meet—
(a)at 2.30 p.m. on Tuesday 22nd March; and
(b)at 9.25 a.m. and 2.30 p.m. on Thursday 24th March, Tuesday 5th April, Thursday 7th April, Tuesday 12th April and Thursday 14th April;
(2)the proceedings shall be taken in the following order, namely, Clause 1, Schedule 1, Clauses 2 to 19, Schedule 2, Clauses 20 to 27, Schedule 3, Clause 28, Schedule 4, Clauses 29 to 46, Schedule 5, Clauses 47 to 50, Schedule 6, Clauses 51 to 53, Schedule 7, Clause 54, Schedule 8, Clauses 55 to 61, Schedule 9, Clauses 62 and 63, new Clauses and new Schedules relating to Part 1, Clause 101, Schedule 16, Clauses 102 to 107, Schedule 17, Clauses 108 to 117, Schedule 18, Clause 118, Clauses 74 to 77, Schedule 13, Clauses 78 to 98, Schedule 14, Clause 99, Schedule 15, Clause 100, new Clauses and new Schedules relating to Part 3, Clauses 64 to 66, Schedule 10, Clause 67, Schedule 11, Clauses 68 to 71, Schedule 12, Clauses 72 and 73, new Clauses and new Schedules relating to Part 2, Clauses 119 to 123, Schedule 19, Clauses 124 to 128, other new Clauses and new Schedules and any remaining proceedings on the Bill;
(3)the proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 5.30 p.m. on Thursday 14th April.
I welcome you to your position as Chairman of today’s proceedings, Mr. Forth. We have the opportunity to make good progress today on an important piece of legislation, which has won widespread support in the education world, and on which we had a good, and largely consensual, debate last week.

Question put and agreed to.

Eric Forth: I remind the Committee that there is a money resolution in connection with the Bill, and that copies are available in the Room. I also remind members of the Committee that adequate notice should be given of amendments. As a general rule, I and my fellow Chairman do not intend to call starred amendments, including any starred amendments that may be reached during an afternoon sitting of the Committee.

Clause 1 - Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Schools in England

Angela Watkinson: I beg to move amendment No. 5, in clause 1, page 1, line 16, leave out
‘be appointed for a term of more than’
and insert
‘serve more than two consecutive terms of’.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship in Committee this morning, Mr. Forth. I confess that I suddenly find myself in difficulty, because the set of amendments that I was given or their numbers bear no relation to those that I see on the amendment paper. I shall proceed as best I can.
The amendment would restrict the term of appointment of the chief inspector to no more than two consecutive terms. That seems to us a sensible limitation on such an appointment. The amendment would provide a control in the Bill, against very long service by one person in that post. A sensible 10-year term would seem the most appropriate maximum.

Derek Twigg: It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Mr. Forth. I shall be brief.
Clause 1 re-enacts the provisions of the School Inspections Act 1996, which, in turn, re-enacted the original provisions of the Education (Schools) Act 1992. It includes a requirement for the chief inspector to be appointed by the Queen in Council for a maximum of five years, but places no further restrictions on the reappointment. Those arrangements balance the need to safeguard the integrity of the post, by limiting the length of the term of office, with the need to ensure that the most suitable candidate may be appointed.
We remain committed to making recommendations to Her Majesty about the appointment of the chief inspector on the basis of merit and ministerial accountability. We would not usually reappoint without competition for more than two terms, save in very exceptional circumstances for a short period. However, it is right to retain the flexibility to extend the appointment for a further full term, on the basis of open competition, if the candidate is the very best for the job. I therefore urge that the amendment be withdrawn.

Angela Watkinson: Bearing in mind what the Minister has said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 1 agreed to.

Clause 2 - Functions of Her Majesty’s chief inspector of schools in England

Angela Watkinson: I beg to move amendment No. 6, in clause 2, page 2, line 25, after ‘State,’, insert
‘by a resolution of either House of Parliament, or by a resolution of a committee of either House of Parliament,’.

Eric Forth: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 7, in clause 2, page 2, line 26, after ‘State’, insert
‘or to the relevant House or committee’.
No. 8, in clause 2, page 2, line 27, leave out ‘Secretary of State’s’.

Angela Watkinson: The amendment is a sensible expansion of the scope of the clause. It clarifies the functions of Her Majesty’s chief inspector, in expanding the role taken between the two Houses.

Derek Twigg: Clause 2 places a general duty on the chief inspector to keep the Secretary of State informed about standards and quality of education and the well-being of pupils in our schools. That is key information for the Secretary of State in discharging her responsibility for ensuring that education policies and education provision in England are of the highest quality. She is accountable to Parliament for that. She needs the best independent information and advice to assess the impact of those policies, to inform the development of new policies and to be able to account for her decisions.
That is not to say that Parliament should not benefit from the independent advice of the chief inspector. Clause 3 specifically requires the chief inspector to produce an annual report, which must be laid before Parliament. The report is made to the Secretary of State, to allow that to happen. I emphasise “to the Secretary of State” because the Secretary of State has no power to intervene in the findings of the chief inspector.
What Parliament receives is the chief inspector’s independent assessment. The annual report distils all the inspection evidence that Ofsted collects into the now very familiar state of the nation in education report. The evidence makes an important contribution to the parliamentary debate and scrutiny. Indeed, one of the biannual meetings of the Education and Skills Committee with the chief inspector focuses specifically on the report.
The chief inspector publishes on his website every school, college and local authority inspection report. He also publishes a wide range of thematic reports and studies, most recently on further education colleges, special needs, out-of-school provision and outdoor education. The chief inspector also publishes more than 100 of those thematic and subject reports every year. All contribute to parliamentary debate and scrutiny of education policies, without the need for a resolution or request from any Committee.
The amendments cut across that clarity of accountability and independence. Amendment No. 6 would mean that the Secretary of State would require the agreement of Parliament before any request could go to the chief inspector. Amendments Nos. 7 and 8 would mean that that request would no longer be in the Secretary of State’s name and the advice or information would be provided to Parliament.
As I have shown, a great deal of the advice and information is already publicly available; that which is not published is of a more sensitive nature.

Nick Gibb: Will the Minister just clarify precisely how the Bill changes the accountability of Her Majesty’s chief inspector to Parliament? What is the present position, and how will the Bill change it?

Derek Twigg: As I have just made clear, the Education and Skills Committee has the report and discusses it. Ministers are obviously accountable through questions and debates that take place in Parliament.
The information that is not published is of a more sensitive nature, as it often deals directly with individuals or specific institutions. It would not be right for that information, or even the request for such sensitive information, to be so much in the public domain. There are many occasions when Members of Parliament receive information from others sources that we do not disclose to ensure that no injustice is done, even inadvertently, to individuals or institutions.
It appears to me that the process resulting from the amendments would be unnecessarily bureaucratic. Is such additional bureaucracy what hon. Members intend? Perhaps they are concerned that the chief inspector holds back information at the Secretary of State’s request. I assure the Committee that that is not possible. The chief inspector has always published, and will continue to publish, reports that may be viewed as critical of the Government’s policies.
There is nothing in the Bill that enables the Secretary of State to prevent the publication of any report; nor would she do that. I know that she places great value on having such a respected, independent chief inspector as David Bell. As he recently stated in his evidence to the Education and Skills Committee on 16March, it is his job to report as he finds things, with a view to influencing the decisions that Ministers make. I ask that the amendments not be pressed to a vote.

Angela Watkinson: In view of the Minister’s reassurance on those matters, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Angela Watkinson: I beg to move amendment No. 9, in clause 2, page 2, line 29, at end insert—
‘(2A)In addition, the Chief Inspector has the following specific duties—
(a)establishing and maintaining the register mentioned in section [Registration of inspectors in England];
(b)giving guidance to inspectors registered in that register, and such other persons as he considers appropriate, in connection with inspections of schools in England under section 5 and the making of reports of such inspections;
(c)keeping under review the system of inspecting schools under that section and, in particular, the standard of such inspections and of the reports made by registered inspectors;
(d)keeping under review the extent to which any requirements imposed by or under this Part, or any other enactment, on any registered inspector, local education authority, proprietor of a school or governing body in relation to inspections of schools in England is complied with;
(e)promoting efficiency in the conduct and reporting of inspections of schools in England by encouraging competition in the provision of services by registered inspectors.’.

Eric Forth: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: amendment No. 10, in clause 2, page 2, line 40, at end insert—
‘(7)In addition, the Chief Inspector has the following specific duties—
(a)establishing and maintaining a register for registered inspectors in England;
(b)giving guidance to inspectors registered in that register, and such other persons as he considers appropriate, in connection with inspections of schools in England under section 5 or 8 and the making of reports of such inspections;
(c)keeping under review the system of inspecting schools under that section and, in particular, the standard of such inspectors and of the reports made by registered inspections;
(d)promoting efficiency in the conduct and reporting of inspections of schools in England by encouraging competition in the provision of services by registered inspectors.’.
Amendment No. 13, in clause 5, page 3, line 44, at end insert
‘and
(c)to appoint a registered inspector to undertake inspections under this section.’.
Amendment No. 17, in clause 5, page 5, line 3, at end insert—
‘(8)Schedule [Inspections in England under section 5] has effect in relation to inspections under this section.’.
Amendment No. 1, in schedule 7, page 84, line 28, leave out paragraph 2 and insert—
‘(1)Section 79P of the Children Act 1989 (early years child care inspectorate for England) is amended as follows—
(2)For subsection (1) substitute—
“The Chief Inspector has a duty to maintain a register of early years child care inspectors for England.”
(3)Omit subsections (2) to (5).’.
Amendment No. 26, in schedule 7, page 84, line 28, leave out paragraph 2 and insert—
‘(1)Section 79P of the Children Act 1989 (early years child care inspectorate for England) is amended as follows.
(2)For subsection (1) substitute—
“(1)The Chief Inspector has a duty to maintain a register of early years child care inspectors for England.”
(3)Omit subsections (2) to (4).’.
Amendment No. 27, in schedule 7, page 84, line 33, leave out sub-paragraphs (3) to (5).
Amendment No. 28, in schedule 7, page 85, line 15, leave out sub-paragraph (8).
Amendment No. 3, in schedule 7, page 86, line 16, leave out sub-paragraph (2).
Amendment No. 4, in schedule 7, page 86, line 18, leave out sub-paragraph (3).
New clause 1—Registration of inspectors in England—
‘(1)No person may conduct an inspection of any school in England under section 5 unless—
(a)he is a member of the Inspectorate, or
(b)he is registered as an inspector in a register kept by the Chief Inspector for the purposes of this Chapter.
(2)The Chief Inspector may not register a person under this section unless, having regard to any conditions that he proposes to impose under subsection (4)(c), it appears to him that that person—
(a)is a fit and proper person for discharging the functions of a registered inspector, and
(b)will be capable of conducting inspections under this Chapter competently and effectively,
and no person may be so registered if he falls within a category of persons prescribed for the purposes of this subsection.
(3)An application for registration under this section—
(a)must be made in such a manner, and be accompanied by such particulars, as the Chief Inspector may direct, and
(b)must be accompanied by the prescribed fee.
(4)On an application duly made under this section the Chief Inspector may—
(a)register the applicant,
(b)refuse to register him, or
(c)register him subject to such conditions as the Chief Inspector considers it appropriate to impose.
(5)The matters to which the Chief Inspector may have regard in deciding whether to register the applicant include, in particular—
(a)the extent to which the Chief Inspector proposes to exercise his discretion under subsection (1) of section 28 to secure that inspections under that section are conducted by members of the Inspectorate rather than registered inspectors, and
(b)the extent to which there is a need for registered inspectors in England.
(6)Conditions under subsection (4)(c) may be conditions applying generally in relation to all cases, or particular classes of case, or such conditions together with specific conditions applying in the particular case.
(7)Where a person is registered subject to conditions imposed under subsection (4)(c), he is to be taken to be authorised to act as a registered inspector only so far as those conditions permit.
(8)The period for which any registration is to have effect is to be determined by the Chief Inspector and must be entered in the register kept by him.
(9)Nothing in subsection (8) is to be taken as preventing a registered inspector from applying for a fresh registration to take effect immediately on the expiry of his current registration.’.
New clause 3—Removal from register and imposition or variation of conditions—
‘(1)If the Chief Inspector is satisfied that any of the conditions mentioned in subsection (2) is satisfied with respect to an inspector registered in the register, he may remove the name of that inspector from the register.
(2)The conditions are that—
(a)he is no longer a fit and proper person for discharging the functions of a registered inspector under this Chapter;
(b)he is no longer capable of conducting inspections under this Chapter competently and effectively;
(c)there has been a significant failure on his part to comply with any condition imposed under section [Registration of inspectors in England] (4)(c) and subject to which his registration has effect;
(d)he has, without reasonable explanation, produced a report of an inspection which is, in whole or in part, seriously misleading.
(3)If the Chief Inspector is satisfied—
(a)that he is authorised by subsection (2) to remove the name of an inspector from the register, or
(b)that it would otherwise be in the public interest to act under this subsection, he may vary any condition subject to which the registration of that inspector has effect or vary that registration by imposing a condition subject to which it will have effect.’.
New clause 5—Training for inspections—
‘Schedule [Training for inspections] has effect.’.
New clause 6—Appeals in relation to registration—
‘(1)Any person who is aggrieved by—
(a)the refusal of the Chief Inspector to renew his registration under section [Registration of inspectors in England],
(b)the imposition or variation of any condition subject to which he is registered under that section, or
(c)the removal of his name from the register under section [Removal from register and imposition or variation of conditions],
may appeal against the Chief Inspector’s decision to a tribunal constituted in accordance with Schedule [Tribunals hearing appeals in England].
(2)Where—
(a)a decision to refuse to renew a person’s registration under section [Registration of inspectors in England] is expressed to be based on the ground—
(i)that there is a reduced need for registered inspectors in England, or
(ii)that there is no longer any need for registered inspectors in England, and
(b)the tribunal is satisfied that the decision was based on one of those grounds,
the tribunal must confirm the decision to refuse renewal.
(3)No decision of the Chief Inspector falling within subsection (1)(b) or (c) is to have effect until—
(a)the disposal of any appeal against the decision which is duly made under this section, or
(b)the period within which an appeal maybe made has expired without an appeal having been made.
(4)Subsection (3) does not apply where the Chief Inspector—
(a)is satisfied that the circumstances of the case justify the decision in question taking effect immediately, or earlier than would otherwise be the case, and
(b)notifies the person concerned to that effect.
(5)On determining any appeal under this section, the tribunal may—
(a)confirm, reverse or vary the decision appealed against, or
(b)remit the case to the Chief Inspector with directions as to the action to be taken by him.
(6)Schedule [Tribunals hearing appeals in England] makes further provision with respect to tribunals constituted to hear appeals under this section.’.
New schedule 1—Training for inspections—
1No person shall conduct an inspection of a school in England, or act as a member of an inspection team for such a school, unless he has, in the opinion of the Chief Inspector for England, satisfactorily completed a course of training provided by, or complying with arrangements approved by, that Chief Inspector.
2Where the Chief Inspector for England provides such training he may charge such fees as are reasonable for the purpose of recovering the whole, or part of the cost of providing it.
3Paragraph 1 shall not apply in such circumstances as may be specified, either generally or in relation to a particular case or class of case, by the Chief Inspector for England.
Meeting with parents 4Where an inspection is arranged, the appropriate authority for the school concerned shall— (a)take such steps as are reasonably practicable to notify— (i)the parents of registered pupils at the school, and
4Where an inspection is arranged, the appropriate authority for the school concerned shall—
(a)take such steps as are reasonably practicable to notify—
(ii)such other persons as may be prescribed,
of the time when the inspection is to take place; and
(b)arrange a meeting, in accordance with such provisions as may be prescribed, between the inspector conducting the inspection and those parents of registered pupils at the school who wish to attend.
Rights of entry etc. 5A registered inspector conducting an inspection, and the members of his inspection team, shall have at all reasonable times— (a)a right of entry to the premises of the school concerned; and  (b)a right to inspect, and take copies of, any records kept by the school, and any other documents containing information relating to the school, which he requires for the purposes of the inspection.
5A registered inspector conducting an inspection, and the members of his inspection team, shall have at all reasonable times—
(a)a right of entry to the premises of the school concerned; and
Offence of obstructing inspector or inspection team 6(1)It shall be an offence wilfully to obstruct— (a)a registered inspector, or (b)a member of an inspection team,
6(1)It shall be an offence wilfully to obstruct—
(a)a registered inspector, or
in the exercise of his functions in relation to an inspection of a school.
(2)Any person guilty of an offence under sub-paragraph (1) shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale.’.
New schedule 2—Inspections in England under section 5—
Interpretation 1In this Schedule—“appropriate authority” means— (a)in the case of a county, voluntary, maintained special or maintained nursery school whose governing body does not have a delegated budget, the local education authority; (b)in the case of a non-maintained school, the proprietor of the school;
1In this Schedule—“appropriate authority” means—
(a)in the case of a county, voluntary, maintained special or maintained nursery school whose governing body does not have a delegated budget, the local education authority;
(c)in any other case, the school’s governing body;
“inspection” means an inspection under section 5.
Selection of registered inspectors 2Before entering into any arrangement for an inspection, the Chief Inspector shall, after consulting the appropriate authority for the school concerned as to the tender specification, invite tenders from at least two registered inspectors who can reasonably be expected— (a)to wish to tender for the proposed inspection; and (b)to tender at arm’s length from each other.
2Before entering into any arrangement for an inspection, the Chief Inspector shall, after consulting the appropriate authority for the school concerned as to the tender specification, invite tenders from at least two registered inspectors who can reasonably be expected—
(a)to wish to tender for the proposed inspection; and
Inspection teams 3(1)Every inspection shall be conducted by a registered inspector with the assistance of a team (an “inspection team”) consisting of persons who are fit and proper persons for carrying out the inspection. (2)It shall be the duty of the registered inspector to ensure that— (a)at least one member of the inspection team is a person— (i)without personal experience in the management of any school or the provision of education in any school (otherwise than as a governor or in any other voluntary capacity); and
3(1)Every inspection shall be conducted by a registered inspector with the assistance of a team (an “inspection team”) consisting of persons who are fit and proper persons for carrying out the inspection.
(2)It shall be the duty of the registered inspector to ensure that—
(a)at least one member of the inspection team is a person—
(ii)whose primary function on the team is not that of providing financial or business expertise; and
(b)no member of the inspection team falls within a category of person prescribed for the purposes of this sub-paragraph.
(3)Otherwise, the composition of the inspection team shall be determined by the registered inspector.
(4)It shall be the duty of the registered inspector to ensure that no person takes any part in an inspection if he has, or has at any time had, any connection with—
(a)the school in question,
(b)any person who is employed at the school,
(c)any person who is a member of the school’s governing body, or
(d)the proprietor of the school,
of a kind which might reasonably be taken to raise doubts about his ability to act impartially in relation to that school.’.
New schedule 3—Tribunals hearing appeals in England—
Constitution of tribunals 1(1)A tribunal constituted to hear an appeal under section [Appeals in relation to registration] of this Act (“a tribunal”) shall consist of— (a)a Chairman appointed by the Lord Chancellor; and (b)two other members appointed by the Secretary of State.
1(1)A tribunal constituted to hear an appeal under section [Appeals in relation to registration] of this Act (“a tribunal”) shall consist of—
(a)a Chairman appointed by the Lord Chancellor; and
(2)To be qualified for appointment as Chairman of a tribunal, a person must have a 7 year general qualification (within the meaning of section 71 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990).
(3)A person shall not be appointed after the day on which he attains the age of 70 to be the Chairman of a tribunal.
Procedure of tribunals 2(1)The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision with respect to the making of appeals to, and the procedure to be followed by, tribunals. (2)The regulations may, in particular, make provision— (a)as to the period within which, and manner in which, appeals must be brought; (b)for the holding of hearings in private in prescribed circumstances;
2(1)The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision with respect to the making of appeals to, and the procedure to be followed by, tribunals.
(2)The regulations may, in particular, make provision—
(a)as to the period within which, and manner in which, appeals must be brought;
(c)as to the persons who may appear on behalf of the parties;
(d)for enabling hearings to be conducted even though a member of the tribunal, other than the Chairman, is absent;
(e)as to the disclosure by the appellant, and others, of documents and the inspection of documents;
(f)requiring persons to attend the proceedings and give evidence;
(g)as to the payment of expenses incurred by persons compelled to attend proceedings by regulations made by virtue of sub-paragraph (1);
(h)authorising the administration of oaths to witnesses;
(i)as to the withdrawal of appeals;
(j)as to costs and expenses incurred by any party to the proceedings; and
(k)authorising preliminary or incidental matters in relation to an appeal to be dealt with by the Chairman of the tribunal hearing that appeal.
Staff 3The Secretary of State may, with the consent of the Treasury, make such provision as he thinks fit for— (a)the allocation of staff for any tribunal; (b)the remuneration of members of tribunals and the reimbursement of their expenses;
3The Secretary of State may, with the consent of the Treasury, make such provision as he thinks fit for—
(a)the allocation of staff for any tribunal;
(c)defraying any reasonable expenses incurred by any tribunal.’.

Angela Watkinson: This group of amendments relates to the maintenance of a register of inspectors in England. I am puzzled at the omission from the clause of a reference to the maintenance of a register, which has been included in the past. With the changes to the style of inspection that are now proposed for schools, inspections will be shorter, albeit more frequent, and will be less burdensome on schools, but there is a requirement to report and observe on a comprehensive list of activities in schools. The inspections will last only one or two days, and are quite an onerous task for inspectors. It is very challenging to examine all those aspects of school life, and the inspectors will need to be highly competent and experienced in order to carry out such a demanding task.
The chief inspector retains the final responsibility, but he is dependent on the information that he receives in the report from the inspector to inform his decision. So the quality and consistency of reporting between different inspections in different schools will be extremely important.
The amendments seek to ensure that the previous high standards of former registered inspectors are maintained by introducing a register of additional inspectors. It is difficult to see how that would hinder the speeding up or the streamlining of inspections in  schools, which is one of the Bill’s main objectives. How did this come about? What representations did the Minister receive, what consultation was there with former inspectors, with chief inspectors, with schools or with governors? Who believed that this would be an improvement to the whole system? What purpose is served by excluding a register, which has always been a reliable indication of competence and would continue to be for additional inspectors?
When an inspector’s service has proved to be unsatisfactory or has given rise to complaints, the ability to remove them from a register would provide quality assurance and would be another indication that quality and accountability were being maintained. We believe that such a facility would be an improvement to the whole system and a failsafe.

John Pugh: May I apologise for being a little late, and say what a pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship, Mr. Forth? I have particularly fond memories from my early days in Parliament when you were the shadow Leader of the House and your exchanges with the right hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) were much enjoyed by us all. Nothing since Morecambe and Wise has quite rivalled them. They were possibly even a little more subtle. May I also warn you that the Bill was considered so dull on Second Reading that we ended up talking about almost everything but the legislation?
I do, however, have a point to make about amendments Nos. 9 and 10, both of which contain an excellent paragraph (c), which refers to
“keeping under review the system of inspecting schools under that section ... the standard of such inspectors and of the reports made by registered inspections”.
The phrase “keeping under review” leaps off the page. Everyone accepts that there has been quite a variation in how schools are inspected since the days of Matthew Arnold. There have been times when certain procedures were believed to be less than ideal. Even the Government are having second thoughts about how these inspections can be conducted.
Given that background and the complexity of the numbers of subjects that will be inspected and the numbers of new teaching staff who may emerge, there is a need to keep constantly under review the way in which inspections are conducted; whether they are conducted well and whether they achieve the results that people intend them to have. There is therefore no merit in the inner core of the Conservative amendments. Will the Minister assure us that, when we have finally done with this template for inspectors in a few days’ time and it is finished, that will still not be the end of it and that the Government and the chief inspector will monitor and evaluate the process constantly, because it is sure going to need it?

Stephen Twigg: I, too, remember your time as shadow Leader of the House, Mr. Forth; I was serving as deputy to my right hon. Friend the Member for Livingston at the time, and we all enjoyed the exchanges—particularly the Thursday morning exchanges on the business statement.
The hon. Lady reasonably asked how the measures to which the amendments are addressed came about. They came about in the same way as the rest of the Bill’s measures—through a sustained programme of engagement between the Department and the Government and those involved in education, including those involved in inspection, and representatives of schools, Ofsted and local education authorities.
I believe that the measures will strengthen inspection and remove some of the inconsistencies in inspection reports that rightly concern people. It should ensure a much stronger guarantee of the quality of inspection. Indeed, that question was debated not only outside the House when preparing the Bill but in the other place. A number of powerful contributions were made during the debate in the other place, including by former chief inspectors of schools.
The proposals are not about bringing the inspectors back into the Department or undermining their independence; indeed, I would say the opposite. If the proposals gain Royal Assent, we will continue to have—the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb) challenged us on the subject—a completely independent inspectorate that makes the best-value use of contractual arrangements, with a high-quality core of Her Majesty’s inspectorate at its heart. We want to strengthen accountability in the vast majority of inspections conducted by registered inspectors. The chief inspector is not able at the moment to ensure that final reports are robust and rigorous, or that their judgments match the evidence.

Nick Gibb: I am slightly baffled by the Minister’s statement that the Bill will mean a more independent inspectorate. Given that the intention is to bring inspections in-house—I was interested to hear that the Government want to maintain contracted-out inspections—I wonder what proportion of inspectors are contracted out now, and what proportion he envisages being contracted out once the Bill is enacted.

Stephen Twigg: I am not in a position to answer now, but I might magically be able to do so before I finish speaking were a note to appear by my side.
I was seeking to make the point that there is a lack of consistency in the current practice. We want the chief inspector to be able to ensure that judgments are rigorous, and it is important that schools and early-years settings should have the opportunity to comment on those judgments before they are published. Schools and early-year settings should also have confidence that the system of inspection will help them to improve outcomes for their children and their communities.
We all know from our experience—whether as Members of Parliament, as governors or as parents—how hard it can be for a school that is, for example, put on special measures. It is hard for all involved—the staff, the head, but particularly the pupils. We must not shy away from that most critical judgment, but we must ensure that it is defensible, that it is based on evidence and that it has been assured by the chief  inspector. The critical point that I seek to make about the quality of inspections is that they have the assurance of the chief inspector himself.

Nick Gibb: This is an important point. It seems that the inspector will be less directly accountable to Parliament and more accountable to the Secretary of State. Given that, does not giving the Her Majesty’s chief inspector more power over the drafting of the reports effectively mean that he is less independent, particularly because of his closer relationship with the Secretary of State? Does not that take us back to the days before the establishment of Ofsted and to an HMI that many people said was the dog that did not bark in the night?

Stephen Twigg: I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point, which he made also on Second Reading. I do not accept that strengthening the relationship between the Department, the Secretary of State and Ofsted need undermine the independence of Ofsted—nor its accountability to Parliament, which is crucial. That accountability was reflected in the fact that the chief inspector, David Bell, appeared before the Select Committee last week. It is in no way compromised, undermined or changed by the proposals set out in the Bill.
I am now able to answer the hon. Gentleman’s earlier question. The present position is that there are 250 HMI. That will not change under the proposals. The move from registration to the new arrangements will involve a reduction in the number of contracted inspectors from about 5,000 to about 3,000. That will enable us to manage the quality of inspections far more effectively. I will return to that point in a moment.

Angela Watkinson: If there are going to be fewer inspectors but more inspections, will it not be difficult for that smaller body of inspectors? For example, if somebody is ill or otherwise unable to conduct an inspection that he is contracted to do, then, given the number and frequency of inspections, will it not be difficult to keep up with the schedule? Does it not forecast a slippage?

Stephen Twigg: I understand the hon. Lady’s point. Of course, while we have the number of registered inspectors that I referred to, many of those are simply on the register, but not taking part in inspections. One of the concerns about consistency and quality is that there are people on the register who are not part of inspection arrangements in any schools, whereas, under the new arrangements, which I will say more about in a moment, we can ensure much closer monitoring and management of the contracts to ensure that the best people are among the 3,000. Therefore, I do not believe that the danger that she drew to the Committee’s attention is likely to arise. I will return to that point.
I want to distinguish between the position for early years education and the position for schools. We want to ensure that Ofsted’s early years inspection work force is of the highest quality. We attach great  importance to the training and development of inspectors. Clearly, early childhood is a time of great importance in children’s development and the quality of care that children receive in their early years makes a difference to their development and achievements in later life.
Paragraph 2 of schedule 7 removes the requirement on the chief inspector for England to maintain a register of early years child care inspectors in England. At present, almost all Ofsted’s early years inspectors are Ofsted employees and, as such, they are not separately registered. Removal of the registration requirement for early years inspection will, therefore, have almost no impact. Should Ofsted decide in future to engage more external inspectors, as it does for its school inspections, it will monitor and control the performance and quality of the inspectors through normal contract management arrangements. We believe that those will be as effective as any registration system in securing the services of appropriately qualified and experienced inspectors, which is the purpose of the hon. Lady’s amendments.

Angela Watkinson: I take the Minister back to the quality of inspectors and the specific requirements for inspecting early years provision. As there will be no register, how will it be determined that individual inspectors have the specific and appropriate qualifications for sectors of education provision, particularly for the early years sector, in which child development and associated issues in addition to teaching come into play?

Stephen Twigg: The hon. Lady is right to remind us of the importance of having the highest quality, not least in early years settings. Under the new regime, the onus will be on Ofsted to ensure that it employs people of the highest quality, as it is now. One of our concerns about the register, which in practice applies more to schools, but theoretically applies in early years settings, is that it provides a bare minimum accountability for those being employed by Ofsted, but is not sufficient and rigorous enough. She is absolutely right that we need to get things right. We do that by effective contract management, and performance management of both the contract and the individuals who are employed.

Angela Watkinson: Let me press the Minister a little further on the clarity and accountability of the qualifications required. Will it be possible for schools and others to know what qualifications are required of inspectors? Were they on a register, it would be an indication that they had the required level of appropriate qualification. If there is no register, we are totally reliant on the chief inspector. Is there no further information that can be accessed by people who need to know that the people who conduct inspections are properly qualified and offering the right quality of service?

Stephen Twigg: The hon. Lady is absolutely right to remind the Committee of the importance of not just parents but those who work in early years settings in schools having that assurance. Schedule 1 sets out the standards as appropriate, and I invite her to review it. If we can correspond further or take an opportunity later in the proceedings of the Bill to clarify the matter, I will be happy to do so. She and I share a commitment to achieving the highest possible quality. The Government believe that the mechanisms in the Bill will achieve what her amendments seek to achieve, which is that quality.
Under our proposals, the chief inspector will be the single accountable figure under whose name all school inspection reports will be published. On that basis, Parliament will be able to hold him to account. Subject to the fate of the Bill, the chief inspector will use a combination of HMI inspectors and, through a number of regional contractors, additional inspectors to deliver a shorter, sharper inspection system. That means less notice, less stress for teaching staff and schools, less time for schools to undertake unnecessary preparation for inspection and fewer but better qualified members of an inspection team who will produce reports that should be more in line with school improvement and written in a language more accessible to parents.
The critical point, which we have touched on already in our exchanges, is that, through the contracts that the chief inspector will make, he will ensure that all additional inspectors meet the standards that he sets. The standards will be published under schedule 1. The chief inspector will be responsible for ensuring that all inspectors have the necessary qualifications, experience and skills to assist in the discharge of what is an important duty. He will be allowed to operate a much more rigorous contract management arrangement and to ensure that no one inspector can undertake an inspection without first having demonstrated to one of the HMI that they have undertaken an inspection to the satisfaction of that member of HMI. In addition, they must continue to meet the standards. That is the critical difference from how things have been.
Performance management will be a strong part of the new system, with each contractor having rigorous key performance indicators in their contract. At least once a year—although it is more likely to be every term—the chief inspector will publish a list of those people who are engaged by inspection service providers to carry out inspections on behalf of the chief inspector, and every school will have access to details of those who are engaged as additional inspectors. The measures will serve as a powerful incentive for the chief inspector, the service providers and the inspectors themselves to ensure that they deliver a high-quality inspection service.

Angela Watkinson: May I press the Minister a little further on procedures if an inspector has proved to be unsatisfactory, is providing a service that does not meet the standards required, or has given rise to complaints from several schools? The remedy is simple if a register is in place, as the unsatisfactory inspector  can be removed from the register. However, if there is no register, there will have to be some other procedure to deal with the problem.

Stephen Twigg: In fact, the hon. Lady’s point is part of our case for making these changes. As I said, a register provides only a kind of fitness-to-practise badge. It does not ensure ongoing satisfaction with performance, which we all want. It places an onus on Ofsted to prove that an inspector is unable to remain on the register. That means that, until the process begins, an inspector who is known to be poor at inspection can continue to inspect. That is the situation under the present system, and I do not believe that any hon. Member wants it to continue.
Under our proposals, the chief inspector can ensure, through strong contract management and increased HMI involvement, that there is ongoing meeting of the standards and that an individual who is no longer able to fulfil what is expected of them is removed from the register. We believe that we have the mechanisms in place to ensure that that will work.
The comprehensive measures that we are putting in place have been improved by discussion not only outside the House but in the other place. They will ensure that only those inspectors who are appropriately trained and who demonstrate not just at the outset but on an ongoing basis that they meet the required standards will inspect our schools. I believe that the hon. Lady’s amendments were in fact designed to probe the Government and to seek reassurance. I hope that I have been able to give her that reassurance.

Angela Watkinson: This is a very wide-ranging set of amendments, which, as the Minister right says, seek to ensure that the standard of inspections is maintained. As we all know, school inspections make not only head teachers and teachers but parents and governors—indeed, the entire school—enormously anxious. It is only right that they are reassured that systems are in place that ensure that they can be confident that the people who are coming into their school to conduct the inspections are properly qualified, are of the right standard and will have the time to consider the wide-ranging duties that the Bill requires them to perform. Those people will need to be highly experienced and competent to be able to evaluate that wide range of aspects of school life in one or two days.
As we all know, an inspection hangs over a school like a great black cloud. Shorter notice is probably an advantage, so that that black cloud hangs over the school for a shorter time. An enormous amount of time and energy used to be devoted to preparation for the inspection rather than to the everyday life of the school. The Minister has given reassurance on those points, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3 - Annual and other reports to Secretary of State

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

John Pugh: I understand that clause 3 re-enacts a previous measure. It asks the Secretary of State to lay a copy of a very important document—the annual report of the chief inspector—before Parliament.
All sorts of documents are laid before Parliament every day. We may, as we speak, hear a quiet thud in the background as many more are laid before the House, but will the Minister say whether he has given any thought to the idea of actually doing something with it when it is laid before Parliament? For example, Select Committees consider estimates and so on. This is clearly a pretty important document each year on the nation’s educational history and is worthy of serious debate. It may not be the best use of the document if the clause simply means that the document is laid before Parliament, and that all that we are mandated to do is to receive it. Has the Minister given any thought to the dynamic way in which the document might be used?

Derek Twigg: As the hon. Gentleman said, the clause re-enacts provisions of the School Inspections Act 1996, which require the chief inspector to make an annual report that is laid before Parliament. The publication of the chief inspector’s annual report is one of the key events in the education year, so it is already a key event and is given a lot of publicity. Few people in Parliament or in education are unaware of what the report is about. It always attracts enormous attention.
The report distils all the inspections evidence that Ofsted collects into the now familiar state of the nation education report. That evidence makes an important contribution to the national debate and to Government thinking. Indeed, one of the Select Committee on Education and Skills biannual meetings, in which the chief inspector focuses on the report, provides a broad view of the system for those working in it and celebrates their success. A copy of the report is sent to all head teachers, and particularly successful schools and colleges are named in it.
The clause also re-enacts provisions that allow the chief inspector to make and publish other reports. Ofsted publishes more than 100 schematic and subject surveys a year, all of which have important things to say. They highlight good practice, identify areas that need improvement, and inform the development of policy.

John Pugh: The Minister appears to be saying that everyone takes heed of this document. I agree that everyone will do so, because it is significant in its own right. I simply suggest that a more formal process might make it clear what lessons could be learnt year by year, but there is no mechanism for that. Points can be made in the Department for Education and Skills, on the Floor of the House and in Select Committee.  The document is so significant that it is worth ensuring every year that it does not go through such a process by default. If the Minister has given an assurance that that will never happen, so be it.

Derek Twigg: I mentioned the biannual meeting of the Education and Skills Committee. I re-emphasise that the report has a very high profile and receives a great deal of media attention, as the hon. Gentleman will have seen in the past few weeks and months. We are satisfied with the current system and the way in which the report is dealt with.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4 - Powers of entry etc. for purposes of section 2

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

John Pugh: It appears that Ofsted—or the chief inspector—has appreciable powers, rivalled in most countries only by the powers of the secret police. He has
“a right of entry ... a right to inspect”
and a right to take documents away. It is also
“an offence intentionally to obstruct the Chief Inspector”.
A person guilty of an offence is liable to a summary conviction. I have no argument against that, but it moves away from the consensual model of school inspections. I am not saying that we have had a consensual model, but that is no doubt what we aim at.
I shall not argue against the clause, but it would be useful to me and to the Committee to understand how often the powers given in clause 4 are currently operated. How many times are people summarily convicted and fined? Is it one in 1,000 or one in 100, or does it not occur? Equally, one wants to know that the powers are not used too brazenly. Coming into a school is something that one would hope would be done in the normal hours of daylight. Schools would obviously object if they found an Ofsted inspector rifling through their filing cabinets at night. I am sure that inspectors do not do that, that they do not want to do it and that there is no occasion for such things, but there must be cases in which there is tension. For example, documents may be demanded in too peremptory a way or in a time scale that cannot be met by the school.
In addition to asking how many people are convicted under the provisions, may I ask how many complaints there are from schools about the powers of entry used by Ofsted inspectors and how they are employed in practice?

Stephen Twigg: The hon. Gentleman referred to a consensual model. The Bill seeks to learn lessons from the experience of Ofsted and other modes of  inspection to bring about a system that is robust and has the support of schools. On his specific point, I can reassure him that the provisions have never been used. The answer to each of his questions is “zero”. I hope that that reassures him.
All the clause seeks to do is re-enact the provisions for rights of entry to provide the chief inspector and any inspector authorised to act on his behalf with the right of entry. Clearly it is better that such matters are dealt with on a consensual basis. The evidence so far is that that is exactly what happens in schools. Long may that continue. We need the clause for the unlikely possibility of a breakdown in that consensus in the future.

Angela Watkinson: On that specific point, would not the register be another safeguard? Naming the people with the right of entry into a school on a register would give schools the confidence that the matter has been checked. As I said during discussion of previous clauses, the register is a failsafe mechanism that gives the status and reliability of the people who are named on it.

Stephen Twigg: I do not think so. Notwithstanding the fact that the measure has not been operational, there are often legitimate concerns among schools about quality and consistency, even with the register in place. As I said in the previous discussion, the register is therefore not a sufficient basis on which to provide that reassurance. I am confident that the new arrangements that we put in place in the earlier part of the Bill will provide that assurance of quality.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5 - Duty to inspect certain schools at prescribed levels

Angela Watkinson: I beg to move amendment No. 12, in clause 5, page 3, line 44, at end insert
‘and to make it available—
(i)to the headteacher, staff, parents and pupils of that school;
(ii)in relation to a community, foundation or voluntary school, a community or foundation special school or a maintained nursery school, to the school’s governing body or, if the school does not have a delegated budget, to the local education authority; and
(iii)in relation to a school falling within paragraphs (d) to (g) of subsection (2), to the proprietor of the school.’.

Eric Forth: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 2, in schedule 7, page 85, line 29, after ‘to’, insert
‘the parents of the children for whom the childminding or day care is provided and to’.

Angela Watkinson: Clause 5 relates to the duty to inspect certain schools at prescribed intervals. The amendment relates to the availability of the report that arises from the inspection. Subsection (1)(b) states that
“when the inspection has been completed”,
the chief inspector is required
“to make a report of the inspection in writing.”
The list of people to whom that report should be made available is not specified in the clause. The amendment specifies the individuals and groups of people to whom the report should be made available: the head teacher, staff, parents and pupils of the school. In the case of a community, foundation or voluntary school, a community or foundation special school or a maintained nursery school, it should be sent to the school’s governing body, and if the school does not have a delegated budget, to the local education authority. In relation to paragraphs (d) and (g) of subsection (2), it should be sent to proprietors of the school.
The amendment would clarify and specify to whom the report should be made available. It appears that that may be achieved in later clauses, but specifying it in this clause would provide a belt and braces. There is no specific mention of making the report available to staff, students or parents at a school that has undergone an inspection. We feel that that is an essential addition. The Government say that they are moving towards more parental involvement with schools, but making the inspection report available to parents would be an essential part of that process.
Clauses 14 and 16 refer to making a copy available to any interested members of the public. We would like that provision to be more specific to ensure that parents of any child at the school in question or parents of children applying for a place there who have a proper interest in the inspection results would be able to see the report. The amendments would add to and clarify the range of availability and circulation of an inspection report.

Derek Twigg: We all agree that those with an interest in an inspection should have access to the inspection report. Clauses 14 and 16 require the chief inspector to send copies of the report to specified persons, including the appropriate authority or the proprietor of the school. He must then send copies of the full inspection report to parents and any other person who asks to see a copy.
Under the new system, parents will receive a copy of the full report, rather than just a summary, as they do under the current system. Staff will have access to the report through the school’s routine communications mechanisms. The legislative safeguard that underpins the process is their right, which is like that of any other member of the public, to request a copy of the report from the school. In addition, Ofsted publishes all section 5 in-school inspection reports on its website, making them accessible to anyone with an interest.
Amendment No. 2 would place a duty on the chief inspector in England to ensure that parents with children attending child minding or day care provision are sent a copy of the inspection report. We recognise the importance of parental involvement in the early years inspection process. Parents can exercise influence in securing improvement in provision where necessary, in addition to having the information that they need to make informed choices about the provision they use.
It is our intention that inspection reports are sent to parents and that they are notified of forthcoming inspections. The new duty will, however, be on registered child care providers rather than Ofsted. Schedule 7 already includes a regulation-making power that enabling regulations to require a registered child care provider to send a copy of the report to parents. That is in line with distribution requirements on school governing bodies.
We consider it more appropriate to specify who should be notified and receive copies of early years inspection reports in the regulations, because it would not be appropriate to provide all parents of children attending child care with a copy of the report. We need to provide for exemptions in the case of open access schemes and certain types of crèche provision where there is limited parental contact or a very temporary relationship between the child care provider and the parents.
It would not be appropriate for parents to receive copies of reports in such cases. For example, where a parent leaves a child at a shopping centre crèche for a couple of hours and there is no ongoing relationship between the parent and the crèche provider, it would clearly not be appropriate for the provider to be under a duty to send a copy of the latest inspection report to all parents who have used the facility. The regulation-making power enables such exemptions to be specified. It would be impractical for the duty to send reports to parents to rest with Ofsted. Ofsted does not keep records of the children who receive child care or their parents, but it will continue to publish inspection reports on its website, which will include from April 2005 childminding reports with personal details.
I hope that the hon. Lady is reassured by the Government’s commitment, which I set out today, to the degree to which parents play a role, especially in early years inspections, and that she will seek leave to withdraw the amendment.

Angela Watkinson: Will the Minister clarify who is responsible for ensuring that all parents know that they are entitled to apply for a copy of the report, including parents applying for places at a school at which they do not happen to have children at the time?

Derek Twigg: That responsibility rests with the school.

Angela Watkinson: In view of that reassurance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Angela Watkinson: I beg to move amendment No. 14, in clause 5, page 4, line 46, at end insert
‘and
(g)the availability to the school of persons known as school improvement partners and the contribution made by such persons to the effectiveness of the school.’.
The amendment would widen even further the inspection reports. Secondary schools in particular are widening their involvement in the community. The London borough of Havering, for example, has a business and education partnership that is actively involved with local primary and secondary schools, as  well as other partners who are becoming involved in certain aspects of school life, and not always on the school premises. School activities and the range of those involved in them are becoming wider and much more community-oriented, so we believe that it is legitimate that that aspect of school life and the effect that it is having on the achievement and welfare of students should be included in the report and should be available to such partners.

Stephen Twigg: I thank the hon. Lady for drawing the Committee’s attention to the school improvement partner, which is a very important part of the new relationship with schools. The Bill enables us to make progress on that new relationship. She is quite right that the school improvement partner is one of several external bodies or individuals who are helping schools by working with them to ensure the improvement that we want to see.
The amendment would require the chief inspector to report on the availability to a school of a school improvement partner and the contribution made by them to the effectiveness of the school. It is right that the effectiveness of the school improvement partner role should be evaluated, but the routine school inspection is not the best way of doing that. The school improvement partner will be allocated to the school by its maintaining authority, and they will work under contract to that authority. In Havering, for example, the relevant authority would be the local education authority. Quite rightly, the partner will be part of the accountability arrangements of that authority. The LEA will be responsible for managing the performance of the school improvement partner. That will involve assessing how well the partner offers strategic challenges and support to each school.
The school improvement partner will not be expected to be available to the school at all times. Most partners will be serving head teachers, and we want the very best head teachers to agree to take on the role. Their main function is obviously to lead their own schools, however, so they will not be available to schools at all times. We would not expect the school improvement partner to act on behalf of the authority in the event of a crisis at a school that demands immediate and unscheduled local authority supporting action, as that would not be a realistic use of their time and experience.
The purpose of a school inspection is to evaluate the quality and standards of education in the school and its leadership and management. In future, school inspection reports will be written with parents very much as the key target audience. Judging by what the hon. Lady said, I believe that she will agree that that makes sense. The issue for parents is less about the individual who is helping the school to improve—in this case the school improvement partner—than about ensuring that the school is well managed and effectively led, and that it provides the best education and care for the children. That must be the primary purpose of the school inspection report, and I would not be keen to add a further requirement.

Angela Watkinson: Is the Minister saying that ensuring that school improvement partnerships are working successfully is the responsibility of the council and the local education authority rather than the inspectorate?

Stephen Twigg: Yes, for those schools for which the LEA is the maintaining authority. It is slightly different in the case of voluntary aided schools, but that is so for the majority of community schools.

Angela Watkinson: With those reassurances from the Minister, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Eric Forth: With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 2—Reducing burden of inspection on schools—
‘The Chief Inspector when conducting an inspection under section 5 shall in exercising his functions have regard to the desirability of avoiding excessive administrative burdens being placed on governing bodies and headteachers of maintained schools.’.

Angela Watkinson: Everyone will recognise the changing administrative burdens being placed on governing bodies. Gone are the days when being a school governor meant going to sports days, the Christmas concert and three meetings. That was the end of a governor’s responsibilities. Now, as soon as someone agrees to be a member of a governing body, he is asked on which sub-committees he would like to serve and for which section of the school activities he would like to be responsible. It has become an onerous job.
Those of us who are school governors will know of the volume of printed matter that comes our way. Indeed, there is no head teacher who would not complain about the amount of regulation and paperwork that crosses his desk every day of the school year. It should therefore be implicit in the inspection regime, which is designed to improve and streamline school inspections and take away much of the associated anxiety, that there is a determination to reduce the administrative burden attached to it. I hope that the Minister will describe how that is to be achieved.

John Pugh: New clause 2 is an aspirational clause that most people would warmly support. Anyone who knows about inspections will know that an awful lot of non-functional documentation is produced simply for the inspection. There have even been disputes between schools and inspectors as to which documents were needed and which were purely functional. It may also be difficult to define “excessive administrative burdens”, so although I warmly support the spirit of the new clause, I have some problem with its wording.
The new clause speaks of the desirability of avoiding excessive administrative burdens, but that is slightly tautological because no one would argue that excessive administrative burdens were desirable. We might agree to the provision, but it might not have much practical meaning. Perhaps we are looking for some sort of regulatory assessment on how much of what Ofsted requires is strictly necessary.
The new system will presumably will need a certain amount of testing so that we can see how much is required and whether anything further will be required, but it would be nice to put in something—a signpost to Ofsted inspectors and the inspection regime as a whole—indicating that documents should not be produced unnecessarily. It would be a new version of Occam’s razor. That seems to be the line that we should go down, but I am not sure how we can get it into the legislation without being tautological.

Colin Pickthall: We are debating the chief inspector’s duty to be responsible for inspection and reports. Although the present chief inspector is clearly irreproachable, that was not always the case, and it might not be in future. What assurance is there in the Bill, and in the Acts from which it has taken parts, that no maverick future chief inspector will be able to make substantial and arbitrary changes to reports made by his inspectorate? In the past, changes have been made to suit a personal agenda, and in some cases, the schools—one of them was a teacher training institution—that were the subjects of the reports were severely damaged. I imply no criticism or shadow of blame to the present chief inspector, but he will not always be there.

Stephen Twigg: Let me respond to that, because my hon. Friend raises an important point that I know concerns hon. Members of all parties. It demonstrates the vital importance of the process for appointing the chief inspector, and of the chief inspector’s accountability to Parliament for his or her decisions. The chief inspector should have the ultimate responsibility for inspection reports, but any decision that the chief inspector makes in respect of those reports is a decision for which he or she should be responsible to the House. The arrangement under which Ofsted is accountable to the House via the Select Committee is important. That is the best reassurance that I can offer in respect of the danger to which my hon. Friend draws the Committee’s attention.
Ofsted has conducted more than 100 pilot inspections using a new inspection framework that is designed to support the new extended focus, with the sharper, shorter model of inspection. That extensive testing has shown that the model can deliver a rigorous and reliable inspection while reducing the burden that it places on schools.
The hon. Lady’s new clause draws our attention to important matters of administration and bureaucracy. One of the main purposes of the revised inspection arrangements is to streamline procedures and jettison tasks that are not needed. The regulatory impact assessment that was published to support the Bill, and  which has been made available to the House, highlights the benefits to schools that will be brought about by the changes.
The self-evaluation form—the only form that will now need to be available prior to the inspection— will not be used only for the inspection but will form part of the school’s own review. It will be used by the school continuously, in order to inform its school development plan. That is very different from the current position, of which the hon. Member for Southport (Dr. Pugh) reminded the Committee: schools are required to complete four pre-inspection forms solely for the purpose of the inspection, and then a separate post-inspection plan. The feedback from the trials confirms that schools find the new procedure more useful and less burdensome.

John Pugh: A further spin-off, which is desirable and should be pointed out, is that with the long lead-in time for the inspections that we have at the moment, a lot of schools spend money that they should be using to provide educational benefits for their pupils on preparing for inspections—for instance, by getting consultants in for many weeks beforehand. The Bill is extraordinarily bad news for consultants who perform that role.

Stephen Twigg: The hon. Gentleman is right. We calculate that schools will save some £40 million a year, simply because of the more streamlined arrangements. That money can be spent where it ought to be spent: on the education of children.
Let me make one final point. We have established the implementation review unit, a panel of 12 head teachers and other senior school practitioners who now work in the Department for Education and Skills with a remit to cut bureaucracy across the schools sector. They have been closely involved in the development of the new arrangements, and will continue to monitor them, by visits to schools and meetings with Ofsted and our officials, to ensure that the full benefits are realised.
In the light of what I have been able to say, I hope that the hon. Lady will not press her new clause.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 6 - Duty to notify parents of section 5 inspection

Angela Watkinson: I beg to move amendment No. 15, page 5, line 15, at end insert—
‘(2A)The headteacher may, if he considers it appropriate, arrange a meeting between parents and the Chief Inspector during an inspection of his school.
(2B)If the headteacher has notified the appropriate authority of a meeting under subsection (2A), the appropriate authority shall take whatever action may be required to facilitate such a meeting.’.

Eric Forth: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 18, page 5, line 16, leave out ‘subsection (1)’ and insert ‘this section’.

Angela Watkinson: The amendment would provide that the head teacher may,
“if he considers it appropriate, arrange a meeting between parents and the Chief Inspector during an inspection of his school.”
It has always been the case under the current regime to have a meeting with the chief inspector just at the conclusion of an inspection. In the interests of parental involvement, it is essential that those parents who wish to should have an opportunity to meet the inspector, the governing body and the head teacher to put such questions as arise out of the report, particularly if failings that give cause for concern have been highlighted. Parents will be anxious to discuss how such failings might be remedied and what systems will be put in place to try to put things right and to help the school to improve.
Even if the inspection has been a great success, parents will wish to have an opportunity to speak to the inspector. We are trying to encourage parents to take a close interest in the education of their children, to come into schools more frequently, to take part in the life of the school and to attend the annual meeting of parents and governors. Therefore, it is essential that they should have an opportunity on such a momentous occasion to meet the inspector. The inspection period has been one of great anxiety for the school: will it pass or not, will it be found failing in some way? Very often, the whole school celebrates at the end of an inspection if its fears or anxieties have not been realised.
In the interests of parental involvement, whether the inspection is a cause for concern or for celebration, it is the right of parents to have an opportunity to meet the inspector in person rather than just to have access to the report and the findings.

John Pugh: Inspired by your example as a legislator, Mr. Forth, I shall speak against amendment No. 15, which states:
 “The head teacher may, if he considers it appropriate, arrange a meeting between parents and the Chief Inspector during an inspection of his school.”
I believe that that can happen anyway, as things stand. Therefore, we would be legislating for things to happen that already can happen. It seems a redundant legislative move, as what would take place at the discretion of the head teacher can already be done by the head teacher. I stand to be corrected, but I do not believe that anyone is given additional rights by the amendment. It simply recommends what is, indeed, a desirable practice, but it is not necessarily something that needs enshrining in legislation, unless we want to multiply legislation.

Angela Watkinson: Incorporated in the amendment is a requirement for the chief inspector to make himself available. It certainly is open to the head teacher to arrange a meeting with parents, but the chief inspector may or may not be available to take part in such a meeting, whereas the amendment would make it a requirement on him to be available to parents either during or after the inspection so that they can speak to him personally.

John Pugh: I am enlightened a little more, but the amendment is a little inelegant, if that is its intention. It says something about the headmaster’s discretion, but nothing about the chief inspector’s duties. If the intention is to ensure that the inspector is always available for such meetings, the amendment needs a certain amount of rephrasing.

Derek Twigg: The amendment would place discretion in the hands of the head teacher in deciding whether it is appropriate to arrange a meeting between the inspector and parents. What about parents who have real concerns that they wish to raise with the inspector, but do not want to go through the head teacher? We need better safeguards to ensure that parents have access to inspection teams, as well as the opportunity to express their views about the schools to the inspectors and, if necessary, to discuss with them areas of concern. Parents’ views form a crucial part of the inspection evidence, so we must ensure that effective mechanisms are in place.

Angela Watkinson: Is the Minister saying that there will be a mechanism through which individual parents or groups of parents can have access to the inspector independently of the school?

Derek Twigg: Yes, there can be a meeting if the parents so desire. Obviously, with the shorter, sharper inspection there is less time for one to be arranged, but there is a mechanism for that to happen.
 We need to balance the wider issue of the need to establish shorter, sharper, short-notice inspection arrangements with ensuring that key stakeholders have the opportunity to contribute directly to the inspection process that I have just outlined. The provisions are strengthened by clause 6(2), which ensures that when parents are notified of an inspection, they are also informed about the arrangements that Ofsted has made for them to make their views known to inspectors. If parents express views, they will be considered when the report of the inspection is formulated.
Clause 7 guarantees an opportunity for parental engagement by inviting parents’ views, but it does not describe the method by which they are to be sought. That is intentional. We want to ensure that the arrangements are flexible and responsive to evidence from parents about what works for them.

Angela Watkinson: I am still slightly unclear as to whether a meeting between the parents and the inspector that excluded school representatives could be instigated by the parents—or will they have to wait to be invited to such a meeting?

Derek Twigg: It is entirely for the parents to do that if they so wish.

Angela Watkinson: I thank the Minister for that clarification and, in view of his reassurance that it is open to parents to have access to the chief inspector in person—

Derek Twigg: They would have access to the inspection team that came to the school.

Angela Watkinson: That was a slip of the tongue; it would obviously be more appropriate for parents to have access to the team that has visited the school. Given that reassurance, I am happy to beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 7 to 10 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 11 - Publication of inspection reports

Angela Watkinson: I beg to move amendment No. 16, in clause 11, page 6, line 42, at end insert—
‘(5)The Chief Inspector is required to publish all reports on schools placed in special measures in accordance with the provisions of section 44 and make them available to registered parents of registered pupils at that school.’.

Eric Forth: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 19, in clause 29, page 18, line 42, at end insert—
‘(5)The Chief Inspector is required to publish all reports on schools placed in special measures in accordance with the provisions of section 44 and make them available to registered parents of registered pupils at that school.’.

Angela Watkinson: I am frantically turning pages.

Stephen Twigg: That makes three of us.

Angela Watkinson: Special measures are dreaded by all schools. They come as a great blow. Schools in my constituency with inspirational head teachers, including schools that are having difficulty that feel that they are making good progress, have been inspected and then told that they are going to be put on special measures. That is a body blow to the whole school community.
It is necessary that the reports are published, however, because identifying the weaknesses or problems in a school that led to its being put into special measures is the path out of special measures. The purpose of inspection is not to point the finger and criticise, but to identify failings and to help schools through them so that they can come out of special measures. The publication process is an important part of the inspection process. That is why the amendments were tabled.

Don Touhig: I join colleagues in welcoming you to the Chair, Mr. Forth. Having witnessed your contribution to last Friday’s debate, I think that few people know our procedures better. I am sure that we will be in safe hands and get through our business quickly with you in the Chair. I commend the hon. Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson) too. I know that she is a reader of mystery novels. It may be a mystery why she has little support today, but as she is facing three Ministers with surnames that  sound the same, she has done remarkably well in tackling the matters that she wishes the Committee to consider.
The hon. Lady’s amendments would require the chief inspectors of England and Wales to publish the reports of all schools placed in special measures and make them available to registered parents of registered pupils at the school. I believe that her amendments are unnecessary. They are unnecessary for England because the Bill ensures that the reports of all section 5 inspections, not just those that specify that special measures are required, will be available for inspection by members of the public. Indeed, any person who asks for a copy of the report must be provided with one. Reports are sent to every registered parent of registered pupils at the school.
Under clause 14, the chief inspector is required to ensure that copies of a section 5 inspection report are sent to, among others,
“the appropriate authority for the school.”
The appropriate authority is the school’s governing body, or, if the school does not have a delegated budget, the local education authority. The clause further requires the appropriate authority
“to secure that every registered parent of a registered pupil at the school receives a copy of the report”.
Clause 38 makes similar provision for the report of section 28 inspections in Wales. It provides for the inspection report to be sent to the appropriate authority for the school. It also places a duty on the appropriate authority to secure that every registered parent and every registered pupil is sent a summary of the report with the full report on request. Clause 11 enables the chief inspector in England to publish any inspection report in such manner as they think appropriate. Clause 29 enables the chief inspector in Wales to do the same. Publication of inspection reports is an important aspect of the role of the chief inspectors in raising public awareness of key educational issues. In practice, all section 5 and section 28 inspection reports will be published. That is the case for such reports now and it will continue to be the case under the arrangements set out in the Bill.
The amendments are therefore superfluous. The Bill already ensures that inspection reports will be publicly available and that parents will receive the reports of their children’s schools, irrespective of whether special measures are required. With that explanation, I hope that the hon. Lady will feel able to seek leave to withdraw her amendments.

Angela Watkinson: I thank the Minister for that reassurance. It is not the news that parents with children at a school put into special measures are hoping for, but they need that information. If parents are aware of the areas of failure in a school, the school community can work together to overcome those  problems. Given his reassurance that that information will be available to parents, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 11 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 12 to 19 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 2 agreed to.

Clauses 20 to 27 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 3 agreed to.

Clause 28 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 4 agreed to.

Clauses 29 to 43 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 44 - Categories of schools causing concern

Angela Watkinson: I beg to move amendment No. 20, in clause 44, page 29, line 28, after ‘failing’, insert ‘or likely to fail’.

Eric Forth: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 21, in clause 44, page 29, line 29, leave out from ‘education’ to end of line 32.

Angela Watkinson: We move now to the clause dealing with categories of schools causing concern. The new regime has reduced the range of categories that define a school as failing or needing to go into special measures. These are simple amendments. On amendment No. 20, we think that it is important to identify a school that is likely to fail and to help it not to do so before it happens. On the principle that prevention is better than cure, identifying a school as likely to fail and dealing with procedures to prevent it from going into crisis would be an important measure and an improvement to the Bill. It would save some schools from being identified as failing before they reached crisis point. That is the reason for inserting those few words—to clarify the term “failing” and to introduce a different category of schools that have not quite reached that stage and could be prevented from doing so.
Amendment No. 21, at page 29, line 29, would, in effect, delete paragraph (b) from that category, which reads:
“the persons responsible for leading, managing or governing the school are not demonstrating the capacity to secure the necessary improvement in the school.”

John Pugh: May I speak against the amendments? I am not a great fan of the blame culture, but neither am I prepared to come over as particularly liberal and lax at this point. The hon. Lady makes the valid point that, in a sense, the system up to now has been a cliff-edge system. Schools have gone along as they will, and suddenly they can be declared to be in special measures, and all kinds of help are then available. That  is not the kind of model that we want; it is the model that we are sometimes reduced to working with, because local authorities are so disempowered, but we want a model in which, as she said, schools that are declining and not performing as well as hitherto will be supported so that they can improve without getting into special measures.
Nevertheless, the concept of a failing school can fairly readily be benchmarked. Certain criteria that schools ought to be expected to meet can be defined, comparisons can be made with similar cohorts and decisions can be made about whether a school has failed or not. The phrase “likely to fail” is a much more subjective judgment. We all know when a Government or future Government have failed to do something, but it is not always easy to tell in advance when they are likely to fail to do something. That is usually a point of debate, as all the facts or issues may not be before us. Adding the phrase “likely to fail” adds an element of subjectivity to the appraisal process, which is probably undesirable.

Angela Watkinson: I understand that the inspection regime involves a scoring system on a range of one to nine. There must be a point on that scale at which failure is recognised. I do not know where on that scoring spectrum failure is identified, but if an inspector is considering whether, for example, a certain area of school activity should be scored at two, three or two and a half, that may be the point at which the fact that it is likely to fail could be identified.

John Pugh: I accept that point, but there is an element of subjectivity. I use the rather poor analogy of the premier league. Southampton have just crept out of the relegation zone. An avid Southampton supporter would say that the team is going to advance up the league by leaps and bounds. A rather more pessimistic person, or a Crystal Palace supporter, might well suggest that it is likely to fail. The position on the score sheet cannot be used to extrapolate that failure is likely or will continue.
That brings me rather nicely on to my second point. The Government—possibly going soft in their old age, or as they head towards whatever term they think that they are heading towards—have added a further element. They say that a school will be placed in special measures if it is demonstrably failing and
“the persons responsible for leading, managing or governing the school are not demonstrating the capacity to secure the necessary improvement in the school.”
Therefore, there must be some circumstances in which the school is benchmarked. Perhaps it has a new and dynamic staff—people who are capable of turning the school around—in which case it may be decided to hold back on the special measures that the Government have the option of implementing, because there is the capacity to improve.
If a school has the capacity to improve, it should be given the chance to do so, rather than simply being completely taken over. We are all aware that the head teacher is often a crucial element in a school’s evolution and progress. Changing a head teacher, or  the senior management can dramatically turn a school around. The Government are not unwise to say that, in circumstances in which a school is failing, or has failed, relative to other schools, but has the evidential promise to improve, they want to stay their hand a little and to give the school autonomy. That does not necessarily mean failing to give it adequate support.

Don Touhig: I will deal first with amendment No. 20. I appreciate the argument that action should be taken at an early stage when problems are emerging in a school and that matters should not be left until the school is identified by Ofsted inspections as requiring special measures. Schools that are likely to fail will be caught by the new “significant improvement” category that we are introducing in the Bill. The category is defined in clause 44(2), which provides that
“a school requires significant improvement if, although not falling within subsection (1),”—
that is, not requiring special measures—
“it is performing significantly less well than it might in all the circumstances reasonably be expected to perform.”
Schools that face difficulties and are likely to fail will therefore fall into the “significant improvement” category. I would expect such schools to be identified and supported at an early stage.
Local education authorities are expected to challenge, support and monitor the progress of all their schools. The hon. Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson) knows, from her experience as a school governor, that that certainly happens. It certainly happened when I was a school governor. LEAs should have a clear strategy for identifying weak schools and should take decisive action before those schools receive an adverse inspection report. Schools should seek LEA support where problems emerge. Effective and open communication between schools, LEAs and other stakeholders is essential in those circumstances. Guidance makes it clear that LEAs should work closely with schools and other stakeholders, including, where appropriate, the local diocese or, in the case of sixth forms, local learning and skills councils in England, or the National Council for Education and Training for Wales.
The guidance also makes it clear that the aim should always be to provide support before formal intervention. However, when intervention is necessary, LEAs have powers to intervene in schools. The powers are available for use before schools are placed in the “cause for concern” category following inspection. The LEA may give a school a formal warning if it has serious concerns about it, and non-compliance may result in the LEA using its intervention powers, which would enable it, for example, to add governors to strengthen the governing body. I personally have encountered a situation in which the LEA brought in additional governors.
Therefore, the “likely to fail” category is not needed to ensure that early action is taken to improve a school. Schools in England will be able to look to their school improvement partner, who will be an experienced practitioner accountable to the LEA and charged with  providing advice and support to schools on improvement matters. In Wales, schools will continue to work with the LEA.

Angela Watkinson: Can the Minister say a little more about the improvement process for a school that has been identified as needing significant improvement or that is in special measures? What period would elapse before another inspection and what process would a school follow to get out of such categories? Will there be any change from the current regime?

Don Touhig: I will come back to that in a moment, if I may. I would like to continue with some of the matters that I originally intended to cover.
On amendment No. 21, the Bill provides that a school requires special measures if two criteria are satisfied: first, if
“the school is failing to give its pupils an acceptable standard of education”,
and, secondly, if the school’s leadership is
“not demonstrating the capacity to secure the necessary improvement”.
The amendment would delete the second part of the definition and remove the requirement to take into account the school’s capacity to improve. We have introduced that new requirement, which is an important change to the current definition of special measures, to ensure that inspectors who are making special measures judgments give specific attention to a school’s capacity to improve.

Angela Watkinson: On that point, can the Minister say a little more about what action will be taken in respect of the individuals in the school who are failing to show leadership or management skills? Obviously, there are personnel implications.

Don Touhig: There are clear implications for the personnel in schools if such measures are taken. I may be able to deal with the matter to the hon. Lady’s satisfaction when we deal with other amendments that she has tabled.
The clause will improve the effectiveness of the categorisation, thus ensuring that the worst cases of school failures are identified and tackled. Let me explain why we are proposing the change.
Occasionally, schools have been placed in special measures because they are not providing an acceptable standard of education despite having acquired the capacity to improve. That may have resulted, for example, from a recent change of leadership that is demonstrably driving the school forward. The school may already have made an accurate self-evaluation of its provision that coincides with the inspection findings, and it may already be well on the way to putting things right. It is not difficult to imagine the frustration likely to be felt by a strong head teacher if the school is then placed in special measures. That could knock the school back. The progress that it was making could be halted by the adverse effect on staff morale of a special measures judgment in such circumstances.
The Government’s view is that it makes no sense to place in special measures a school that is already well on the way to recovery. The Bill’s definition of special measures reflects that, ensures that school failures will continue to be identified and challenged, and that support will be provided as part of the continuing effort to drive up standards. The points made by the hon. Member for Southport reinforce what I am trying to get across.
The hon. Lady asked about follow-up action for special measures. The LEA would take the action and produce a plan, which would be monitored by Ofsted, for combating the problems that required special measures. I hope that that explains clearly and to the hon. Lady’s satisfaction how we would deal with the matter, and that she will withdraw her amendment.

Angela Watkinson: I am still a little unclear about the implications where individual members of staff are identified as contributing to a school’s failure. I wonder what the logical conclusion of that might be. Could it lead to official warnings or even dismissal in extreme cases?

Don Touhig: In extreme cases, it could. I tried to make that point in my response. Of course, it would be a matter for the school governors and there might well need to be changes in senior management. Again, such measures were first introduced when the Conservative party was in government, and we have now vested greater influence and power in school governors. Their influence and power is certainly greater than when I first became a school governor at the age of 18—

John Pugh: Ten years ago.

Don Touhig: Around 10 years ago. The hon. Gentleman is now on my Christmas card list.
The change has been beneficial. There is now greater empowerment of local school governors, who can respond to the problems faced by schools in our communities.

Angela Watkinson: After that explanation, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 44 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 45 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 46 - Sixth forms requiring significant improval

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

John Pugh: I wonder whether I can tempt the Minister into a slightly wider debate. Clause 46 is fairly innocuous, and schedule 5 is unbearably dull, but there is a significant issue about what kind of inspection regime will prevail in sixth forms. The Government’s change in policy raises the possibility of there being a  multiplication of sixth forms in many LEAs, with 11 to 16 schools having the opportunity to exert their right to develop sixth-form provision.
The Minister will be aware that, historically, there has been quite a debate in many LEAs about rationalising sixth-form provision, with the object of ensuring that it is high quality across the LEA. He will also be aware that the profile of certain sixth forms is somewhat similar to that of a further education college—many of the students do not do the standard 11 to 18 school A-level or AS courses, but pursue various vocational or semi-vocational courses.
Given that environment, some embryonic sixth forms will be inspected and found not to exhibit the classic profile that sixth forms are expected to exhibit. They will perhaps have small numbers at first, or people will be doing a limited range of subjects. I want the Minister’s assurance that, if schools go down that road, they will not find themselves in dire straits. If they have something like a sixth form, it may be vulnerable to severe criticism when an inspection takes place. I would like him to acknowledge intellectually that the scenario about which I am speculating could occur—perhaps he would like to reassure me that it could not—and that when it does, whatever form of inspection we have will be appropriately tailored to take account of what the new embryonic sixth form has been allowed to become in the limited time in which it has been allowed to evolve.

Stephen Twigg: The hon. Gentleman raises an important issue. It is a consequence of something that we set out in the five-year strategy for the Department for Education and Skills, which was published in July 2004. He will know that we have been consulting on the proposal to make it easier for a school that does not have a sixth form to open one. We are certainly not saying that we want a free-for-all, which would not be in the interests of learners or, indeed, schools themselves. We are saying that we want a proper quality choice of institutions and courses in each neighbourhood. The 14 to 19 challenge provides an opportunity for institutions to work more closely together. I understand the scenario that he describes and I accept that it is a possibility. I think it unlikely because a school that introduces a proposal to open a sixth form will have to consult other local providers and talk to the Learning and Skills Council. Will it be in the interests of that school to open a sixth form that is unlikely to be viable?

John Pugh: The Minister has mentioned a quality threshold, and that is entirely sensible. Is there a quantity threshold? Is there an animus—I used the word on Second Reading—against a sixth form of fewer than 100 students?

Stephen Twigg: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that a series of area reviews is being conducted by the Learning and Skills Council to consider precisely that question. I do not believe that we can set an absolute national quantity threshold because what may be an appropriate quantity in inner-city London or  Manchester may not make sense for a rural school serving a sparsely populated area. The key starting point has to be the availability of the necessary range of courses and qualifications for children and young people. Of course, with technology, there are opportunities for distance learning, video conferencing and so on, so there cannot be an absolute figure.
I would accept, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman would, that we have sixth forms that are not viable in practice. I have seen reviews during the work I have been doing in London, where schools that have sixth forms with quite small numbers of students have agreed to give up their sixth forms and to support a sixth form college as a solution in the best interests of learning in their area. That demonstrates that one size fits all is not an appropriate way to deal with the matter. Different solutions are suitable for different parts of the country.
To comment on the clause, the term
 “Sixth forms requiring significant improvement”
reflects the new significant improvement category of schools causing concern introduced by clause 44. Currently, a school may be judged on inspection to have an inadequate sixth form. In future, such a school will be categorised as having a sixth form that requires significant improvement. It is simply a part of the simplification of categories and I therefore recommend that the clause stand part of the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 46 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 5 agreed to.

Clauses 47 to 50 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 6 - Inspections of denominational education in Wales

Question proposed, That this schedule be the Sixth schedule to the Bill.

Angela Watkinson: I have a brief question about the nature of inspections of denominational education in Wales.

Don Touhig: In Wales?

Angela Watkinson: Yes, in relation to schedule 6. I presume the process does not differ significantly from denominational inspections in England. As a governor of a denominational school, I am acutely aware how a denomination affects the ethos of the school. I happen to be the governor of a Roman Catholic school, although I am not a Roman Catholic. A range of denominational schools are springing up. There are Sikh schools, schools for Jewish children and for other denominations. Is it intended that the inspecting team or inspector who goes to inspect religious education will subscribe to the particular denomination of the school?

Don Touhig: I believe that that is the case, but I am somewhat in doubt. I shall write to the hon. Lady to clarify the matter.

Question put and agreed to.

Schedule 6 agreed to.

Clause 51 - Power of LEA to inspect maintained school for specific purpose

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

John Pugh: The clause allows the LEA to inspect schools and to exercise any function where the local authority requires information in connection with any function discharged by it. I strongly support the clause but I wonder how far it extends. It was regarded as quite a minimalist clause, whereby the local authority simply arrives in a school to inspect whether education maintenance allowances, for example, are administered properly. It can be seen as a much more positive clause. My view is that LEAs should have a strongly supportive role in all their schools and that the LEA’s support is particularly useful in connection with such things as behavioural difficulties. Early intervention, good monitoring and a properly managed transfer from primary to secondary school are crucial in order to keep on top of the problem.
I do not think the Government are opposed to the idea, but I strongly advocate LEAs acting as important partners in ensuring that all the schools in the area are well behaved and well run, that problematic children are in class and that problematic situations are adequately dealt with. That crucial LEA role may be seriously underestimated. In many respects, it would certainly be a cheaper option than establishing hosts of turn-around schools or more pupil referral units.
I do not want to be politically contentious, but it amuses me that the Tory prospect of turn-around schools will create more places than the number of children currently being expelled. That leads me to the irresistible conclusion that children will be worse behaved under the Conservatives. Otherwise, why have all those additional places? Because of the capacity being planned, I can assume only that disciplinary standards will decline sharply and markedly.
The local authority has a key role, for instance, in identifying children at risk or those with behaviour difficulties, and in ensuring that primary schools do not neglect the situation and simply wait to get such children into secondary school. Such work involves a degree of liaison and demands a strong and positive local authority role. If the local authority is to do that job properly, it needs to know about the schools’ behaviour programmes. I believe that the best local authorities already do so. However, they need the right to have the information, and I guess that they can do that only if it is included in the clause as a local  authority function. I want clarification about what we might construe the local authority function to be in the context of the clause.

Stephen Twigg: The hon. Gentleman spoke in support of the clause. The clause is important. We do not anticipate the power being used by LEAs to conduct routine school inspections on standards. That is not their role; it is Ofsted’s. However, he is absolutely right to remind the Committee that LEAs have a number of important roles. In some ways, because of the agenda in “Every Child Matters”, it is an increasingly important role on questions of child protection, the inclusion of children and on some of the behavioural issues to which he referred. The clause ensures that the authority has the power to go to a school and to exercise its functions. I take the opportunity to reaffirm the important role that LEAs have to play.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 51 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 52 and 53 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 7 - Inspection of child minding, day care and nursery education

Question proposed, That this schedule be the Seventh schedule to the Bill.

Angela Watkinson: I would like to tease one or two answers out of the Minister. With respect to child minding, I wonder to what degree the record of children minded by an individual child minder is taken into consideration. Some child minders have great experience and have been doing it for a long time. Having visited some, I know that the length of time that a child stays with a child minder is a good indication of the service being provided, as is the fact that siblings follow on. A less satisfactory child minder may be noted for a quicker turnover of children. I would like to establish that that is taken into consideration.
The National Day Nurseries Association and the National Campaign for Real Nursery Education have said in discussions that the old nursery nurse qualification awarded by the National Nursery Examining Board was far more effective, and that students with that qualification were much better prepared for looking after young children than students leaving sixth form and other colleges with NVQs in child minding. They also say that the standard of the old NNEB qualification suited their purposes much better. It should be borne in mind that the scope of the NVQ may not be wide enough or may not incorporate sufficient information about, say, child development to fit students for the roles in nurseries that they hope to play.
The Minister reassured us that parents of children in nurseries and other child minding settings would receive a copy of the inspector’s report. Problems accelerate faster with very young children than they do with older children. The damage that can be done to a very young child if there are problems in a child minding setting can be serious and have long-lasting effects. The details of the report and the inspector’s findings are therefore of paramount importance in early years settings.

John Pugh: The schedule is important because child minding is an important aspect of many people’s lives. There have been some horrific stories of child minding being done badly. We have all seen television broadcasts that show that services can be poor if they are not inspected properly. Parents can be the last people to know exactly how bad those services are. Therefore, they need some guarantee or warranty from the inspection service to show that the service that they are using is of good quality.
It is self-evident that not everyone should be allowed to take up child minding. We would not, for example, give King Herod a licence. However, I have from time to time as a constituency MP come across cases in which people have invested significantly in child minding ventures. They have had plans for the future and have had every intention of performing a good, professional and caring service. However, occasionally, they have had difficulties because of what inspectors said and have believed that the verdict was partial.
There needs to be a very good assessment and a very good result, but there also needs to be an appropriate, reasonable and robust appeal mechanism to deal with occasions when the assessment is disputed and people believe that the service that they provide has been unfairly criticised. I am not asking for any latitude for people who provide a bad service, but we want to ensure fairness for those people who believe that they provide a good service but who may not, at first blush, impress inspectors.

Stephen Twigg: To be fair to the Committee, I shall write to the hon. Lady, to the hon. Gentleman and to other Committee members to ensure that I respond fully to the legitimate points that they have made. The Government seek through the legislation to strengthen the consistency of practice in inspection, but the hon. Lady and hon. Gentleman have raised a set of issues with regard to very young children and the position of child minders in particular, and I want to do justice to those points by considering them fully with colleagues in my Department.

Question put and agreed to.

Schedule 7 agreed to.

Clause 54 - Inspection of independent schools

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

John Pugh: It is an extraordinarily short clause, which states:
 “Schedule 8 contains amendments relating to the inspection of independent schools.”
I apologise to the Minister; I may not have read those words with the attention that they deserve. Independent schools always have a particular view of how they should function. It is often at variance with the standard state education. One thinks of the difficulties that Summerhill school had with the inspection regime. There is clearly a balance to be achieved between recognising that independent schools are indeed independent and are often chosen by parents because they want a particular genre of education not available in the state system, and ensuring that independent schools provide a good education. Without going into the detail of the amendments, will the Minister assure me that the flexibility and independence of independent schools is not in any way modified by any of the amendments in schedule 8?

Stephen Twigg: I am happy to give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that he seeks. The changes set out in the clause are essentially technical. In practice, since the possibility of registered inspectors being used in the independent sector came in, registered inspectors have not been used. That situation has not occurred. All the inspections that have been carried out have continued to be undertaken by Ofsted. The removal of the power for inspection by registered inspectors will, therefore, have no practical effect.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 54 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 8 agreed to.

Clauses 55 to 61 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 9 - Further amendments relating to school inspection

Stephen Twigg: I beg to move amendment No. 36, in schedule 9, page 100, line 26, at end insert
‘Protection of Children Act 1999 (c. 14) 22AIn section 9 of the Protection of Children Act 1999 (tribunal to hear certain appeals) omit subsection (2)(ca).’. The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 38, 39, 32, 33 and 35.
22AIn section 9 of the Protection of Children Act 1999 (tribunal to hear certain appeals) omit subsection (2)(ca).’.

Eric Forth: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 38, 39, 32, 33 and 35.

Stephen Twigg: Government amendment No. 35 simply removes the other place’s privilege amendment. The remaining amendments in the group are technical and consequential on the repeal of the register of early years inspectors in England.

Amendment agreed to.

Schedule 9, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 62 and 63 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause 4 - Complaints Procedures

‘(1)The Secretary of State shall make regulations establishing procedures whereby persons who may be prescribed by such regulations under this Chapter as having an interest in an inspection shall have the right of complaint to an independent adjudicator appointed for the purpose that—
(a)the inspection has been conducted in a manner inconsistent with the requirements of this Act or with regulations made under this Act;
(b)a member of an inspection team has in carrying out an inspection behaved in a manner which may be considered unreasonably prejudicial to the interests of the complainant; or
(c)the inspection report of an inspection contains material prejudicial to the interests of the complainant which cannot be considered justifiable by reference to the evidence available in the course of conducting the inspection.
(2)Upon receipt of the findings of an independent adjudicator made in accordance with the regulations referred to in subsection (1), the Chief Inspector shall take such action consistent with such findings as appears to him to be necessary in order to satisfy any complaint found to be justifiable including without limitation the modification of any report published under section 11 and the re-publication of such report with such modifications.’. —[Angela Watkinson.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Angela Watkinson: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Eric Forth: With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 7—Complaints procedures (Wales)—
‘(1)The Assembly shall make regulations establishing procedures whereby persons who may be prescribed by such regulations under this Chapter as having an interest in an inspection shall have the right of complaint to an independent adjudicator appointed for the purpose that—
(a)the inspection has been conducted in a manner inconsistent with the requirements of this Act or with regulations made under this Act;
(b)a member of an inspection team has in carrying out an inspection behaved in a manner which may be considered unreasonably prejudicial to the interest of the complainant; or
(c)the inspection report of an inspection contains material prejudicial to the interests of the complainant which cannot be considered justifiable by reference to the evidence available in the course of conducting the inspection.
(2)Upon receipt of the findings of an independent adjudicator made in accordance with the regulations referred to in subsection (1), the Chief Inspector shall take such action consistent with such findings as appears to him to be necessary in order to satisfy any complaint found to be justifiable including without limitation the modification of any report published under section 11 and the re-publication of such report with such modifications.’.

Angela Watkinson: New clause 4 relates to England. New clause 7 is an identical clause that refers to complaints procedures in Wales.
The new clauses are designed to protect schools, head teachers and others involved in the inspection process from what they feel to be an unfair result. As we all know, occasionally, there is a clash of personalities between the management of the school and the Ofsted team. Head teachers of schools in my constituency have commented to me that their Ofsted inspectors were wonderful. They came in, they did not interfere with the school, they said hello and good morning to people. Unfortunately, some Ofsted team members do not have the interpersonal skills that smooth the passage of an inspection and put people at ease. The problem may be something as trivial as that. It may be a serious complaint or some dissatisfaction that arises from the inspection. The new clauses provide a mechanism for appeal against what the school may consider an unjustified or unfair outcome.

John Pugh: I support the new clause. I should make it clear that I need not declare an interest. In God knows how many years of teaching, I was not once inspected by anyone. I managed to be in the right place at the right time, so I bear no grudge myself. They never got me.
I have no axe to grind, but I know of inspections that have gone awry in one way or another: for example, whole-school inspections in which people felt that the inspection got off to a bad start and deteriorated further, and inspections of individual departments. A competent and well-staffed language department was inspected by a fairly professional inspector. They had different views on how language should be taught and exactly what the procedures should be to provide children with a better education in French, German and so on. As a result of what one might call an ideological clash between the inspector and the staff, a satisfactory inspection did not take place. As the whole-school inspection was regarded as something of  a success, the individual teachers who suffered as a result of the judgment passed upon them simply had to grin and bear it.
Such situations always strike me as slightly unfortunate. Some inspectors enter the world of inspection as fellow professionals and partners in education. They have the aim of producing a better, more coherent curriculum or better pupil performance. Unfortunately, there are other inspectors—they are a rarity—who relish their new power as an opportunity to wreak professional havoc on their peers. One would hope that such people were identified fairly early and eliminated from the inspector cohort, but serious injustices occur from time to time. In some cases, people on whom the most adverse judgments are passed are, in fact, some of the most dedicated professionals. I know many teachers. Some of the people who fret most about inspections, who become most nervous under their influence and who are likely to under-perform are the most committed, dedicated and worried about failure. Some people can sail through, adopting a slightly more casual approach.
The general thrust of the new clause is right. We must give teachers, who ultimately are the people being inspected, an assurance that we are mindful of such concerns. If such a provision is not included anywhere else in the Bill, the new clause will be a useful adjunct.

Don Touhig: The new clauses seek to establish procedures for schools or others in England and Wales with an interest in a school inspection to complain to an independent adjudicator. There is already an independent complaints adjudicator for Ofsted. The adjudicator is appointed by the Secretary of State.

It being twenty-five minutes past Eleven o’clock, the Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned till this day at half-past Two o’clock.